[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Nude String! Counterplans In Ceda

Ahh, Glenn and Counterplan WAR!!!!

On Tue, 16 Nov 1993, Glenn Ellingson wrote:

> 
> All right... can someone explain to me why the Negative having a
> generic counterwarrant is a bad thing, but a generic CP is in some way
> better? Adam (and others), you've confused me.
	1. I think that Counterplans really can't be "generic" and still apply.
 By there nature they must be competitive.  So, a Counterplan that doesn't
solve the case harms, or can be permed by the aff isn't a counterplan. 
2. I think that a counterwarrent can be run each round that there is a
non-whole res case run.  Making them the simple research-easy neg
alternative. Counterplans, however should solve for the case advantages,
and offer other alternatives. 


> A CW and a CP are somewhat similar conceptually in that they both
> clash with one subject area by bringing into the round a different
> subject area that in some way supports the conclusion that the
> reslution is false; but a CW competes with a claim of fact or value,
> and a CP competes with a plan.  If the resolution is "rugs are blue",
> and I (the aff) claim "my rug is blue", a counterwarrant of "80% of
> Stainmaster carpets produced are brown" makes sense.  A counterplan of
> "buy a new rug" has no bearing on the resolution.  However, if the
> resolution is "Violence is a justified response to having a blue rug"
> then a counterplan of "buy a new (non-blue) rug *is* a maningful
> response, and a counterwarrant of "80% of Stainmaster carpets are
> brown" is a non sequitor.
	Oh Rugs, Schmugs! (laughing heftily!) I agree with the traditional
premises that you have outlined above.  The examples are a little
specific, but still apply.  One problem is that resolutions are seldom
solely policy/value.  So Counterplans can apply in a non-policy world.  
	Dale Reed from Miami is writing his Masters paper thing on just
this idea, that non-policy debate can accept counterplans as legitimate
strategy.  

> So why, Adam, do you say a generic CP is better thana  generic CW?
> The two positions have different conceptual meanings and uses.  I'll
> leave alone the whole issue of whether generic or on-point arguments
> are better for the moment. I'm honestly confused why a generic CP = a
> good debate and a generic CW = a bad debate.
	Well, I can't answer for adam, but part of it may be new ideas. 
Counterwarrents seem stagnant, old, and not very exciting.  I think
Counterplans are new and have a lot of potential that is not explored.  I
agree that generic counterplans can be bad debate as well, but they don't
have to be.  No one has fully explored the ideas of a study cp, one of the
most popular, traditional cp's.  (Study as an inherency t/o, Study with
thousands of strange advantages, study as anything other than, "study
first") 

> Counterplans are a  mechanism for testingthe adequacy/advantages of a
> solvency mechanism.  IMO, if an Aff runs a plan, then counterplans are
> a logical way to test their claims, and I do not see that there can be
> any argument against the use of counterplans in this way.  Why should
> the Aff's chosen solvency mechanism be viewed as the only opssible
> solvency mechanism?  However, if the Aff is not making a solvency
> claim, CPs make no sense.
	This is the heart of the matter, what I have been grappling with
this semester.  Counterplans can do lots of other things, But the question
of how the counterplan interacts with a strict res-o-fact affirmative, is
one of resolution. 
	On this resoution, it seems at first glance that running a cp on
this res, grants the affirmative their impairment of understanding. (I
still don't believe this.)  On other resolutions I think there is
counterplan ground outside of the aff offereing solvency.  On the UN
Topic, counterplans were run as non-un ways to solve the problems, or as
intrinsicness answers.  I would like to look at the resolutions for next
semester that give cp ground. 

> 
> Of course, there aare the times when an Aff makes an *implied* plan,
> in which case the c-x of 1AC needs to pin th Aff down to what sort of
> comparison they are making, but I don't think our discussion would be
> helped by focusing on the "undecided" ground, but rather by focusing
> on the types of clear rounds, at least first. 
	I think this is problematic. But I agree that some affs nwillingly do
 this.  


Maxwell.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page